Eyeballing Speed?

[Platapus]

PortsmouthProwler brought up an interesting point in another thread, but for the ease of future searches, I would like to make a thread dedicated to "eyeballing" the speeds of ships.

From Portsmouthprowler A DD with a forward wake at the cutwater is probably 12 kt. A Merchie with the same I call 7-9 kt. A capital ship with the same is probably 18 kt.

This has always interested me. Does anyone else have any handy hints for eyeballin speed?

[Stealhead]

Yeah dont do it unless you are very very close like no more than 2,000 yards seeing that an in correct "eyeballing" may end up missing by miles.You over/under guess the speed even by a few knots and the only result will be giving the target some pratice at observing torpedo wakes.I feel getting as accurte a range and speed as you can are both very vital parts of the TDCs data while you can be off with the AOB and still get a hit seeing as in TMO for certain the AOB is going to vary some do to zigs and zags anyway. But speed I dont like to guess unless of course the ship is going 0 knots then eyballing is fine. That and I find myself that i am very good at eyeing range and AOB of course I earned the marksman rib in the Air Force and ditto the Army and when I got checked over by the docs at MEPS when I first enlisted I scored so well on the deapth preception test the guy made me do it 3 times.Give me rifle and if i can see it I can kill it after I get to know the rifle.

[PortsmouthProwler]

Well, that's the whole point, really. You shouldn't be taking shots from a nautical mile away.

Sneak, sneak, sneak, sneak. Get to less than 1,000 yards, 750 is even better.

Patience, patience, patience. Do 'end-arounds'. Ambush them. Get reeeaaallly close. Things I've learned, as far as the program goes (I swear ta God, SHIII was easier):

* It is crucial, absolutely crucial, to put yourself ahead of the target and let them come to you.

* Approach on Silent.

* Keep it to 2 kts, max.

* Even then, the ahistorical ASW will probably detect you.

* Keep the scope down; as Werner Sobe suggests, let the PK do the work for you. Use sonar, too.

* Set your initial target up in advance.

* Last scope look is for firing.

If you get 3 vessels and 24,000 tons on a patrol - congratulations, you're a sub driver.

I won't even begin to ashamedly admit how lousy my marksmanship has been lately. Why? Too impatient, mostly derived from the godalmighty detection by the DDs.

[Stealhead]

I disagree I prefer to fire between 2,000- 4,500 yds(within the max range of a mk.14 at top speed) you have a better chance of hitting at less than 1,000 but you are too close to where you attcked from meaning you will have no time to get out of the DDs"kill zone" the other problem is this gives you little time to fire at a second target by firing form farther away you get much more time to fire at another target and some time to turn away and get deep and be out of the "kill zone". I try to attack so that the fish will take some time to get to the target this allows me wait 6 seconds between each torp allowing for a much better spread gives me time to line up another ship and fire salvos dive and turn away and the second ship will get hit before he has time to make a good enough evasive to aviod getting hit by fish. Also a good crew should have no problem hitting a ship at well over 4,000 yds if the situation requires it sometimes you cant get close sometimes your only option is to take a long range shot. A skipper should be able to use his submarine to its maximum that means he should be able when the need arises to attack at any range that his weapons will allow so 9,000yds for a mk.14.

P.S. getting spotted by DDs? dont get so damn close then. They find you because you either are in thier bloodhound range when they can spot you pre-attack or you aresmack dab in the kill zone see if you shot at 700 yds then you pretty much kill yourself too as they are going to head at full steam where they think the fish orginated at so close you have had no time to get away from that point. Distance (over 2,000 yds) is your buddy go drinking with him. I if in a sub with 6 tubes fore will pick 2 targets in advance. P.S.S. ambush is what a sub is doing to a ship no matter the range and the idea of an ambush on land or at sea is to inflict rapid and sudden damage to someone and be gone before they can react at 2,000+ running TMO I have very often taken my shots turned gone deep listened to the bangs and sail away with the DDs wondering what the hell just happened. Anyway to each his own but with my system I have only be killed a few times in TMO 95% of the time I get away with ease using your close range 95% of the time they kill me.P.S.S.S. I think the ASW is awful in stock and more life like with TMO .P.S.S.S. neither of us has said anything about eyeballing short of my 1st post. We have now made the 100,000th this is my attack method post/I will defend my method because mine is better post.:-? though in real life Lockwood did not care how you did it as long as you got results type of leader so he would be pleased with any method that sank ships.Of course I cant turn any chance to debate something it is in my blood.:know: though if i where the Imperial Navy DD skipper Id be on you like a tick on dog if i know you get that close very easy to just simply have the lead DD sail a zig-zag and have the hydoman have his ears open to a very slow moving very slow rpm prop like he had his ear on his preagbat wife tummy to hear the heartbeat and like wise for for boys on the flanks if you get that close they will hear you even while silent running use your phones and point at your 180 while silent even at less than 1 knot hear that? I can to at a mere 1,000 yds.It is really very low RPM running that is what it should be called you still make auidable noise from thr props that any passive sonar can hear at close range.

[vanjast]

but you are too close to where you attcked from meaning you will have no time to get out of the DDs"kill zone"
Naddah! ..Your sub sounds are concealed by the ship convoy sounds, so being within a convoy, literally gives you free reign. The ASW knows you're there but they have the problem of dodging the other ships to get to you, making your dive to depth and escape very easy.

By contrast, if they pick you up far from the convoy, it's only you and them.
:03:

[Hitman]

That and I find myself that i am very good at eyeing range and AOB of course I earned the marksman rib in the Air Force and ditto the Army and when I got checked over by the docs at MEPS when I first enlisted I scored so well on the deapth preception test the guy made me do it 3 times

I envy you :up:, however your ability to judge distance, AOB and speed in the game is probably thanks to natural intuitiveness and practice rather than through depth perception, which actually doesn't exist in a 2D screen. There are people with a natural ability to discern from teh rate of approach and subtle changes in proportions such thing, you must be one of those gifted ones, congrats :ping:

Now, the relevant paragraph from the U-Boat commander's handbook:



98.) The speed of the enemy can best be calculated from the position forward of the beam. In calculating the speed, attention should be paid to the water at the stern rather than to the sea near the bows, because, if the shape of the bows is narrow (pointed), the visible effect of the progress of the ship is often very slight. In addition, it is more difficult to camouflage the stern (i.e., so as to create the impression of movement, etc.). In estimating the enemy's speed, his course in relation to the direction of the waves, as well as the change of bearing, should be taken into consideration.

[Platapus]

98.) The speed of the enemy can best be calculated from the position forward of the beam. In calculating the speed, attention should be paid to the water at the stern rather than to the sea near the bows, because, if the shape of the bows is narrow (pointed), the visible effect of the progress of the ship is often very slight. In addition, it is more difficult to camouflage the stern (i.e., so as to create the impression of movement, etc.). In estimating the enemy's speed, his course in relation to the direction of the waves, as well as the change of bearing, should be taken into consideration.

This is more of what I wanted to discuss on this thread. I too have read this book and while this paragraph is interesting, it does not go in to further detail about what to look for at the stern.

I guess the first question is: Does SH4, when graphically depicting wakes, actually program the graphic display based on speed, type of ship, and bow/stern construction? After all it really does not matter what happens in real live, what matters is how the computer coding runs.

It is my understanding that in SH4 (like SH3) the sounds of the propellers is not linked to the individual ship model or speed. If this is true, is it safe to assume that the graphic of the wake (being just a bunch of pixels) is linked with the actual speed dependent on ship type and bow/stern construction?

If not, then trying to "eyeball" the speed of a ship based on the bow/stern wakes would be a waste of time.

[ichso]

I would say that the bow spray is linked to the construction. This is because the spray is a particle effect that must be set to originate according to the 3d model of a particular ship, otherwise it would look weird for many of the ships in the game.

But the shape of the spray is a different issue. Also I wouldn't assume that you can real life assumptions on the shape because such a particle effect is only roughly related to physics laws (water spraying up and falling down again).
At the first glance it seems to fit the ship's speed and bow shape but I wouldn't use it for precise assumptions.

[PortsmouthProwler]

[quote=Stealhead;1107474]I disagree I prefer to fire between 2,000- 4,500 yds(within the max range of a mk.14 at top speed) you have a...quote]

I did read the post. If I may, as one who writes for publications and deals with layout on a daily basis - you need to be more reader friendly in your posts. Large dense blocks of text are intimidating and discourage the reader. Break information into bite-size chunks and separate things with white space (or, on this forum, with grey space).

* Anyone is free to play the way he wishes and I don't have an issue with that.

* My style is to play as close to the historical reality as possible. I won't say that I'm the last word, but I have done perhaps more reading than most, as well as worked on SSNs at a Naval Shipyard. I loved US Sub Ops (1949) - standard reference. I also highly recommend George Grider's (...as told to a ghost writer, q.v.) War Fish. Very, very, informative.

* I also knew a tin can veteran for awhile and, remarkably enough, also knew a diesel boat vet at the same time. We talked a lot about distances, approaches, etc.

* These things I find to be a tad ahistoric in the game:

** The player should be able to get within a nautical mile on the surface on a dark night (90% chance) unless he's really careless. Yes, the IJNs night spotting was very good, but on a reasonably dark night, it's next to impossible to pick up a conning tower a mile away. This is disappointing, because the US skippers found, just like the Germans, that surface night attacks were very, very favorable.

** You keep your scope down, are on Silent, making 1.5 kt, and the DDs pick you up at 1200 yards. Sorry, IJN ASW wasn't that good. Their equipment and doctrine were so-so for the first 30 months of the war. Actually, it was their doctrine that was killing them, or rather, the lack thereof.

** Players reporting routinely making kill shots at 1500+ yards. Read US Sub Ops. Yes, there were some long ones (the longest was supposedly about 3,500 yards), but experience showed that you wanted to fire at less than 1,000 for a high hit ratio.

The point being that I play this as 'realistically' as I know how, even asking friends to drop by and throw a bucket of salt water in my face occasionally :D My gripes are actually pretty minor - I wish things were a bit tighter, but...eh.

The real point being that I use the wakes etc., as just one piece of the puzzle. If I see no wake and 'calculate' 14 kt, something's amiss. Also, by getting to a half-mile or less, the whole "shootin' match" becomes much less of a geometrical exercise - the AOB and minor errors in speed are nugatory at 800 yards.

Anyhow, that's how I play. No contacts, no map work, just me and the scope and the TDC. I miss all too often or am driven off/sunk.

Hey, maybe I stink at this!

ADDENDUM

Bear in mind that COMSUBPAC issued target priorities and these were subject to change as the war progressed. Up until '44, DDs were very low. They were given the blessing to go after in '44 because Intel theorized that the Japanese were straining to replace ASW assets. In the early war, CVs and capital surface vessels were top priority, followed by merchants. About late '42 or so, someone woke up and realized that going after tankers was huge.

So I target (a) Merchies, especially fat juicy tankers [when I spot one, that is], (b) big IJN targets with lotsa superstructure, (c) targets of opportunity. I rarely target DDs and leave the fishermen alone.

Which means: get up close to the dumb slow merchant and blast 'em!

[Platapus]

* My style is to play as close to the historical reality as possible. I won't say that I'm the last word, but I have done perhaps more reading than most, as well as worked on SSNs at a Naval Shipyard. I loved US Sub Ops (1949) - standard reference. I also highly recommend George Grider's (...as told to a ghost writer, q.v.) War Fish. Very, very, informative.



I am always looking for more books to add to my library.

I am not finding anything on "US Sub Ops" Is that the full and complete title?

Also concerning Grider's book. I would be interested in hearing your opinions about the accuracy of this book? What specifically do you like about this book and what does it contain that is not covered in other books.

I am always reluctant to put much weight in a memoir. My very biased opinion is that I find memoirs very interesting and entertaining to read, but not always a citable source.

[PortsmouthProwler]

* Umm, Office Of Naval Publications, or something like that, 1949 - US Submarine Operations in World War Two, I think, in full. Basically a distillation of every patrol report, with helpful discussions of tactics, doctrine, the progression and modification of same, etc. Standard and authoritative. Probably out of print, unless you write ONP.

* George Grider was the third officer on the Wahoo when it entered Wewak harbor, among other things. At the time, O'Kane was Morton's XO. Grider ended up as the last wartime CO of the Flasher. Incidentally, someone modded a mission for Flasher's sinking of four tankers in December, 1944 and set it it off the Phillipines. Uh, sorry, but no - it was off the coast of Indochina, at night, and is an approach worth studying.

* I think the ghostwriter's name is Sims.

* Memoirs can be quite instructive, IMO. A couple of observations: "the periscope was next to useless at night" - Grider; "torpedo wakes were almost impossible to spot in all but a glassy sea in broad daylight" - 'Bud' Gruner.

Again, I'm hardly an authority, but am just explaining how I play. Racking up 35,000 tons patrol after patrol is ahistoric. Is historical versimilitude the be-all and end-all? No, play how you wish. I just try to point out things now and then according to my best understanding.

[Platapus]

* Umm, Office Of Naval Publications, or something like that, 1949 - US Submarine Operations in World War Two, I think, in full.

Much thanks


"torpedo wakes were almost impossible to spot in all but a glassy sea in broad daylight" - 'Bud' Gruner.

I have read that in other sources also. From the air the wakes were easily seen but from the relative low angle of observation from a ship, I can believe that it would be hard to see.

I wonder how SH3 and SH4 model this and is it modeled realistically?

[PortsmouthProwler]

You're more than welcome. Grider's boats, BTW: Pollack, Wahoo, Hawkbill, and then command of the Flasher.

* John Lee went on something like nine patrols and was probably the most for any officer, at least a commander. It became SOP to relieve after four or five command patrols and cycle to the States as an instructor or other duties. One reason was to help new skippers. Another was simple stress and fatigue.

* Grider records a couple of gun actions - they certainly weren't unknown. My 'house rule' is pretty much the standard 'wounded merchies only'. Remember that SSs aren't armored - one good enemy hit from a real gun and you're toast, one way or another. Small arms can tear ya up pretty good, too.

* A lot of skippers shot up sampans and such. I just don't bother.

And to stick to the thread topic - it takes a lot of practice to get a feel for speed through the scope or glasses. Again, I use it as a first estimate and try to use whatever I can to get AOB, range, and speed. This can get dicey doing it my way; I've been trying to keep the scope down a lot more lately. Trying to stopwatch things for a full minute can be a giveaway. Maybe 15 seconds would be better.

I'm finding that the approach is extremely important. Trying to eyeball courses at 8,000 yards or more can be difficult. Radar does help. I think that taking the time to get in front of the target's course is probably the first concern.

[Rockin Robbins]

I disagree I prefer to fire between 2,000- 4,500 yds(within the max range of a mk.14 at top speed)

I have to come down in vanjast's corner on this one. Get darn close and let 'em have it with the limited info you have because you're going to be darn busy when attacking a convoy. I pretty much get to well inside 1000 yards, usually inside 800 yards and inside 500 when I can. I don't set a speed at all in the TDC, it's set to zero. I preset the TDC to a range of about 1300 yards, pick a fire bearing, press send range/bearing and shoot. You're in so darn close it isn't rocket science in here at all.

I found that the escorts can't really do much while you are in the convoy, but at some point the merchies will part and Mr Escort will charge through. If you're alert this sets up a perfect high percentage down the throat shot.

I've always been a stickler for detail and precise procedure, but in my testing of GFO and SAP for Webster and jrex, I've done repeat runs on my Convoy from Hell Mission (http://files.filefront.com/610+Rockin+Robbins+Convoyll7z/;13787102;/fileinfo.html) to determine details of ship maneuvering in panic mode.

I just stuck myself in the middle of the convoy, up periscope and point and shoot. And yes I run manual targeting and options as difficult as they go except external cameras are on (but not used) and map updates are on. I know it seems dumb but argue with this result of stock and GFO only:

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/Silent%20Hunter%204/GFO/MWSnap0142009-05-1820-59-16.jpg

That's two hours work with stock game plus GFO only. Some of the two hours was spent approaching and entering the convoy at periscope depth. No other mods. My last four victims were to the deck gun. Those four wouldn't have been possible with RFB or TMO. You don't attack armed merchies with those mods.

[AVGWarhawk]

If you are going for historical...1500 yards are closer. Doctrine...1500 yards are closer. PorthsmouthProwler is on the money. Getting to 1500 yards are better leave little to chance. If you are off by 1 knot in speed calculation....not a big deal, the bow shot now hits a few yards back of the bow. Not matter..you hit the vessel.

Locking the scope.... not needed. You are the stalker, set up your attack. Get to 1500 yards or better and at 90 degrees to target. When sonar calls out slow screws...figure about 7-8 knots. Medium screws 9-11 knots. Fast screws, pull the plug there is a warship after your arse. If you are unsure, use the spread angle on the TDC to compensate for possible speed miscalculations.

After a while, the player can just about tell the speed by bow wake or splash. Also, the time it is taking the target to reach the optimal firing position. If it is taking long and the TC button is looking good...the vessel is doing 6-7 kts. If you have it set up to 11 you are screwed. If the vessel is gaining on you optimal firing solution very quickly and the sonarman is calling out changes in degree quickly the target speed should be up to 10.5-11.

Make mental notes, eventually you will be calling out the solutions like the well seasoned skippers did.

[PortsmouthProwler]

Hey, great advice AVG. I know fer sure I don't use my sonar as well as I could. I'm gonna paste this to a text file.

[AVGWarhawk]

I pretty much shoot from the hip. Those 3500 yard shots are for other players.

I do ping merchants for distance every now and then. I do this twice to get the track it is running.

[Stealhead]

Yeah but like I said anyone can play the game anyway that they want to I was ust saying that I dont get ultra close not less than 1,500 yds really ever. I prefer to fire at around the 3,550-2,500yd range.


I saw that somene says that deapth preception means nothing on a pc. It still does even though it is not really in three dimensions they are siumlating 3D the military uses simulators all the time to train they even have a system that is used to train for small arms marksmanship so you are wrong there. A person who has good dp simply has a very easy time being able to see what of any 2 things is farhter and which is nearer nothing more.The machine that tests dp is also not really in 3D.Anyone can improve thier dp it is not really a "gift" though some have better dp than others a relative of mine failed the dp test to get into pilot training back in WWII his wife found out about a way to improve it and what ever it was she had her husband the the training and he passed the dp test a month or so later.

Prowler I type the way I type if someone feels imtimadted by my typing too bad.That is my way to be sure that only someone who is really interested in what i have to say will read it.This is as spaced out as it will get from me on any forum.It reflects my personality I guess.

[PortsmouthProwler]

Just a suggestion, Stealhead, it's very hard to read your posts. As a pro, we always consider layout and appearance, we want the reader to read things easily. For 'intimidation', read 'off-putting', it wasn't a jab or personal remark. More people are going to read your stuff and understand you more easily if you avoid huge blocks of dense text.

The above goes double for our non-native readers and posters - they're operating in a language that is not their own, so being reader-friendly helps them quite a bit.

Again, just a suggestion - it's my expertise. When my accountant makes a suggestion, I listen to it - it's his expertise.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Looked fine to me, Prowler.

[Rockin Robbins]

Stealhead's writing in book paragraphs in his first post, where we tend to write in newspaper paragraphs of three or four sentences here. I had criticism when I was a newby around here for the same reason.

I still have a tendency, when I am on a roll of writing paragraphs that are too long. I just break it up after I'm done writing the thing. I do think Stealhead got a bit *****ly at what I saw as constructive advice, not criticism. (Danged autocensor wouldn't know a curse word if he smashed his thumb with a hammer:nope:... can't say p*r*i*c*k*l*y. That's perfectly acceptable King's english)

And I found that Stealhead's second post was entirely unobjectionable and formatted within the norm for around these parts. I can understand perfectly in his first post where he was marshaling his argument he was more concerned about what he was saying than what it would look like.

Also, with line spacing of about 120% of the font size (line spacing is the distance from the top of the ascender of one line to the top of the ascender of the next) used in this forum, that makes it necessary to have lines of maximum length about what fits in the edit box to be easily readable. However, when you post it, the lines are over twice as long. To be easily readable, line spacing in the forum should be in the range of 140% to 150% of font size. It isn't so we break posts up into short paragraphs.

What I'm saying is that it isn't entirely Stealhead's fault his long paragraphs are difficult to read. However "if someone feels imtimadted by my typing too bad" is sadly out of place here, especially when in reply to someone giving friendly advice.

Just my opinion, but I'm always right except when I'm wrong.:D

[PortsmouthProwler]

Not a real problem. I made a suggestion, that's all.

Let's get back on-thread.

[Rockin Robbins]

Well, in my testing I think I went too far the other way, with shooting by guessing the correct angles and doing the hip shots. I don't see any evidence that real captains actually did that. You have to remember that when they got back to port their cruise reports were criticized line by line.

Departing from established procedure took with it a real portion of career risk. If you were to do what I did and wipe out a convoy for over 100k tons, you would have produced more tonnage than any other boat did during the entire war. I think it's safe to imagine that your job is safe.

However, trying the same idea and coming home with a goose egg or a couple of small freighters would most likely be the beginning of a brand new life, captaining the base garbage scow. There was strong pressure to go with what had worked before and not to try new ideas without running them up the flagpole beforehand to see if the idea got shot at.

Actual approved procedure consisted of


One target at a time. No multi-target salvos
Get in darn close, well under 1000 yards
No torpedo is fired without a valid solution, checking target position against TDC position
Fire a spread of three or sometimes more at every target
After that target, look to engage others on the same basis or evade as the situation requires

I read of one surface attack by Wahoo where they fired on two targets at once. That was a notable exception to the norm. They were much more conservative than we are.

[SleightOfHand]

Actual approved procedure consisted of * One target at a time. No multi-target salvos * Get in darn close, well under 1000 yards * No torpedo is fired without a valid solution, checking target position against TDC position * Fire a spread of three or sometimes more at every target * After that target, look to engage others on the same basis or evade as the situation requires Heh. Sounds exactly like me. >.>

[Shkval]

600-1000 meters perfect distance, fire, then dive below termal layer in the midst of a convoy, they can cry in despair, turn left or right in the oposite direction of a convoy and say so long suckers!:)

[PortsmouthProwler]

One target at a time. No multi-target salvos
Get in darn close, well under 1000 yards
No torpedo is fired without a valid solution, checking target position against TDC position
Fire a spread of three or sometimes more at every target
After that target, look to engage others on the same basis or evade as the situation requires

My self-criticism:

* One target... - I usually don't have the time or inclination for otherwise, especially since I've been a very, very poor marksman lately. Getting a bit better the last couple of patrols; lost my shooting eye and am starting to get it back.

* Get in close... - no doubt.

* No firing w/o TDC check... - I am a very bad skipper here, I'm afraid. I have been taking a recent post of AVG's to heart and have been pleased on a couple of checks. Definitely will start to do this more. Patience, anticipation, and thinking ahead are the key elements, I believe.

* 3 per spread - I usually fire two at merchants, three or more for a capital ship, and only one when I'm playing merry tag with DDs, which I avoid like the dickens.

* Engage another or evade - it's usually evade for me; I try to come up for round two and catch another merchant or good target, if I can [emphasis on IF]. Sadly, these surface skippers don't wait around too often for me to get another chance; most unsporting of them. Uncle DD likes to hang and party, though.

[Rockin Robbins]

Now my advice is just for most authentic attack, not most effective. I also would only shoot two at any ship, one 1/4 of the way back from the bow and the other 1/4 of the way forward of the stern. But that's not the way the real guys shot torpedoes.

With the advantage of hindsight we "cheat" to achieve much greater results than they did.